Aguilar v. Mission Support Alliance LLC et al, No. 2:2011cv05123 - Document 128 (E.D. Wash. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE LLC'S MOTION, AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION, TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS; granting in part and denying in part 80 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 114 Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Aguilar v. Mission Support Alliance LLC et al Doc. 128 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 No. ED AGUILAR, CV-11-5123-EFS 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE, LLC; HANFORD ATOMIC METAL TRADES COUNCIL; CARPENTER MILLWRIGHT LOCAL UNION 2403, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE LLC’S MOTION, AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION, TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS Defendants. 12 13 14 Before the Court, without oral argument, are Defendant Mission 15 Support 16 Dismiss Complaint and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, ECF Nos. 80 & 17 114. 18 attorney’s fees and costs for the identified tasks, because pro se 19 Plaintiff Ed Aguilar did not fully respond to MSA’s first written 20 discovery requests and second discovery requests by September 20, 21 2013, as ordered by the Court in its August 26, 2013 Order, ECF No. 22 109. 23 deadline. 24 No. 117. 25 the Court can review his discovery answers, 2) contends he has not 26 refused to produce his medical records that are in his possession, and Alliance, LLC’s (MSA) Motion and Supplemental Motion to MSA asks the Court to dismiss this lawsuit, and award it its Mr. Aguilar did not file a response by the October 2, 2013 Mr. Aguilar’s response was filed on October 9, 2013. ECF In his response, Mr. Aguilar 1) requests oral argument so ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 3) advises that he will provide Defendants with his medical records 2 once his providers produce such per his submitted requests. After reviewing the record and relevant authority, the Court is 3 4 fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in 5 part and denies in part MSA’s motion: this lawsuit is not dismissed 6 but Mr. Aguilar’s damage requests are limited given his discovery 7 provided by September 20, 2013. 8 A. Background1 9 MSA has sought discovery from Mr. Aguilar since November 2012, 10 and a series of discovery-related motions have been heard by the 11 Court. 12 address discovery-related motions. 13 to sit for his then-upcoming deposition, 2) limited MSA’s requests for 14 production 15 answers 16 substantively insufficient and ordered him to supplement his answers 17 to the interrogatories and requests for admission by no later than 18 September 20, 2013, 4) ordered Mr. Aguilar to organize any documents 19 that 20 Defendants, and 5) cautioned Mr. Aguilar that September 20, 2013, was 21 the 22 outstanding written discovery requests and that a failure to abide by 23 this deadline could result in the Court dismissing this lawsuit. Most recently, on August 13, 2013, the Court held a hearing to to he final to its the produces first first so extension thirty and that to be The Court 1) ordered Mr. Aguilar requests, second they can provided set be to 3) found Aguilar’s discovery of Mr. requests meaningfully him to reviewed respond to by these ECF 24 1 25 The Court has set forth the background in this case in prior Orders, see e.g., ECF No. 109. 26 ORDER - 2 Therefore, this background section is limited. 1 No. 109. 2 protective order. 3 Dismiss and for Attorney’s Fees under advisement to permit Mr. Aguilar 4 additional time to respond to the discovery requests and to sit for 5 his deposition prior to the Court ruling on MSA’s motion. 6 also permitted MSA to supplement its motion, following the extended 7 discovery period. 8 B. 9 Also on August 13, 2013, the parties entered into an agreed ECF No. 100. The Court took MSA’s Motion to MSA so supplemented its motion. The Court ECF No. 114. Standard A party has the right to discover “any nonprivileged matter that 10 is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” 11 26(b)(1). 12 discovery order, the Court may: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. If a party fails to completely answer interrogatories or a (i) direct[] that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibit[] the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) strik[e] pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) stay[] further pleadings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismiss[] the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) render[] a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treat[] as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); see also id. at 37(d)(3). Under Rule 21 41(b), the Court may also dismiss a lawsuit if the plaintiff fails to 22 comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or a court order. Dismissal 23 is a harsh penalty that is imposed only in extreme circumstances and 24 after warning to the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent. 25 U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.3d 820, 825 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 ORDER - 3 Johnson v. 1 C. Analysis It is clear that Mr. Aguilar’s responses to MSA’s discovery 2 3 requests have 4 However, Mr. Aguilar sat for his deposition and provided some response 5 to 6 impose 7 failures. MSA’s been delinquent discovery the harsh requests. sanction of and in large Accordingly, dismissal measure the for Court his deficient. declines to discovery-related Yet, pointed sanctions are appropriate. 8 First, Mr. Aguilar failed to timely respond to MSA’s discovery 9 requests pertaining to his alleged physical and emotional distress 10 claims. During his 11 suffered from ulcers, anxiety, and sleep troubles as a result of MSA’s 12 alleged 13 However, notwithstanding MSA’s continued request for Mr. Aguilar to 14 provide 15 deadline of September 20, 2013, the Court understands that Mr. Aguilar 16 has not done so. 17 Aguilar seeks leave to have an in-person hearing so that the Court can 18 review his discovery responses. 19 request. 20 2013-disclosure deadline, and Mr. Aguilar could have attached relevant 21 discovery 22 pattern of failing to abide by deadlines, the Court declines to hold 23 an in-person hearing on these dismissal motions. conduct. his deposition, Aguilar medical Mr. Dep., ECF documentation by Aguilar No. the did 115, discuss Ex. 1 at that he 155-175. Court-extended-discovery In his late October 9, 2013 responsive brief, Mr. The Court declines to grant this Mr. Aguilar’s request is two-weeks after the September 20, material to his responsive brief. Given Mr. Aguilar’s 24 The Court determines the most appropriate sanction under the 25 circumstances is to limit Mr. Aguilar’s presentation of his case to 26 the documents and information that he has provided Defendants thus ORDER - 4 1 far. Accordingly, 2 September 20, 2013-deadline medical documentation to support objective 3 symptomatology 4 Aguilar’s 5 variety” emotional distress damages. 6 argue that he suffered from diagnosable medical conditions as a result 7 of 8 documentation to support such conditions, notwithstanding the Court’s 9 extension resulting emotional Defendants’ of because from distress conduct the Mr. Aguilar Defendants’ damages because disclosure did not provide alleged claim is by conduct, limited to the Mr. “garden Mr. Aguilar may not testify or he failed deadline. Mr. to produce Aguilar may medical testify 10 regarding how Defendants’ conduct made him feel, and the jury can then 11 assess Mr. Aguilar’s “garden variety” emotional distress and determine 12 what amount of damages to award. 13 F.2d 1298, 1304 (requiring a plaintiff to “reasonably and sufficiently 14 explain the circumstances of his [emotional-damages] injury and not 15 resort to mere conclusory statements” (quoting cites omitted)); Olsen 16 v. Cnty. of Nassau, 615 F. Supp. 2d 35 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (discussing 17 emotional-distress awards and 18 emotional claims are 19 plaintiff’s testimony). 20 distress See Biggs v. Vill. of Dupo., 892 recognizing generally that only garden-variety supported by the Second, Mr. Aguilar elected not to provide MSA with copies of 21 the requested tax returns. 22 with copies of his W-2s, Defendants are limited in their ability to 23 challenge Mr. Aguilar’s wage loss claim without tax returns. 24 instance, 25 supplemented his income that mitigated his wage loss claim. 26 ORDER - 5 Mr. Aguilar may Although Mr. Aguilar agreed to provide MSA have obtained part-time employment For or Because 1 Mr. Aguilar failed to provide his tax returns, the Court prohibits Mr. 2 Aguilar from alleging a wage loss claim. Finally, the Court declines to award MSA its attorney’s fees at 3 4 this time given these imposed discovery sanctions. 5 sat for his deposition and supplemented his discovery responses to a 6 certain extent by the September 20, 2013 deadline. 7 Court declines to award MSA’s its attorney’s fees at this time. 8 D. 9 Also, Mr. Aguilar Therefore, the Conclusion For the above-given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: MSA’s Motion 10 to Dismiss, ECF No. 80, and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, ECF NO. 11 114, are GRANTED IN PART (evidentiary sanctions are imposed against 12 Mr. Aguilar) and DENIED IN PART (the lawsuit will not be dismissed at 13 this time, and attorney’s fees and costs are not awarded to MSA at 14 this time). 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to Mr. Aguilar and counsel. DATED this 16th day of October 2013. 18 s/ Edward F. Shea EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2011\5123.oct.restrict.attyfees.lc1.docx ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
